Yorkshire Housing Limited (202442850)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202442850

Yorkshire Housing Limited

1 December 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about domestic abuse.

Background

2. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident has been an assured tenant since 2018. The landlord is a housing association.
3. In July 2024 the resident reported anti-social behaviour to the landlord. During the landlord’s investigation of the reports, the resident raised that she was the victim of domestic abuse. The perpetrator was her son, who did not live with her. In September 2024 it was recorded that the resident wanted a managed move for this reason.
4. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 26 November 2024 about a specific member of landlord staff. She felt they had not believed her reports of the abuse during a telephone call.  She asked for a female to handle her case.
5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 13 December 2024, the landlord acknowledged there was a delay in initial contact from the Place Manager, and confirmed the case was, at that stage, with the Safeguarding team and she had been allocated a female officer. The resident’s feedback about the staff member had been passed to management for review. The resulting compensation was £200 for the service failures and inconvenience caused, broken down as follows: £50 for failing to contact the resident within the timeframe expected when the ASB case was logged and £150 for the inconvenience caused.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on 18 December 2024. She said the staff member had bullied her and traumatised her during the call. The resident said the landlord had failed to follow its domestic abuse policy and had refused to do a risk assessment.
7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 January 2025. It did not uphold the complaint and found no failings. It said the policy and processes had been followed.
8. The resident referred her complaint to us as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She believes the landlord should have completed a risk assessment and offered her a new property.

Assessment and findings

9. The subject of the resident’s complaint was a phone call between her and a member of landlord staff on 26 November 2024. During the call the resident requested a risk assessment and a managed move due to domestic abuse. A managed move is appropriate where a resident is at immediate risk of harm and alternative emergency accommodation is required. At that point, the resident was assessed as medium risk and not deemed to require this. The staff member explained this was based on information received from the police, which was reasonable. It should be noted the resident asserts the first report to be in February 2023, however this would fall outside of the scope of this investigation.
10. The staff member said the police had informed him there had been no domestic abuse reports at the property for over a year. He explained that there was no evidence to call an urgent case panel, which was necessary to request a managed move. This was correct. It was appropriate for the landlord to base its decision on the police’s information.
11. An urgent case panel had been held in 2023, and a managed move had not been deemed necessary. This was because there were no recent reports of domestic abuse and there was no immediate risk to life. The resident asserted a second disclosure was made in February/March 2024 about ongoing serious abuse, where she stated there was no safeguarding or DASH risk assessment conducted; again whilst this would not form part of our assessment.
12. Regarding a disclosure in July 2024, the resident asserted a safeguarding referral or DASH assessment was not made within 24 hours. The landlord’s ASB policy states its approach is to acknowledge quickly (within 24 hours) where there is serious ASB such as an assault which has taken place or a threat of violence prior to other action being considered. Upon review of the Domestic Abuse policy, the safeguarding section confirms consideration will be taken if there are any safeguarding implications for each case and whether there are any children or vulnerable adults at risk of harm or self-neglect. If so, section 1 of the Safeguarding System will be completed within 24 hours of receiving the information and the case allocated to a Designated Safeguarding Person (DSP) who will ensure the necessary actions are taken.
13. In this instance, the concerns surrounding domestic violence were only uncovered during the risk assessment investigation dated 19 September 2024 relating to the resident’s reports of ASB in July 2024. Subsequently, the landlord acknowledged in its stage one response dated 13 December 2024 that there was a delay in initial contact from the Place Manager, and confirmed the case was, at that stage, with the Safeguarding team. The landlord assured the resident the Safeguarding team would be in touch to continue the risk assessment process. The resulting compensation was £200 for the service failures and inconvenience caused, broken down as follows: £50 for failing to contact the resident within the timeframe expected when the ASB case was logged and £150 for the inconvenience. I find this to be reasonable for the impact on the resident.
14. This remained the case at the time of the phone call in November 2024, as there was no new evidence to support a change in assessment. The landlord reasonably relied on its records and case notes.
15. During the phone call the staff member repeatedly invited the resident to provide any evidence that would support the contrary. The resident did not agree with the decision and said the landlord had failed to comply with its domestic abuse policy. The landlord did comply with the policy by liaising with relevant agencies. The staff member also offered to speak to the resident’s therapist and worker at a domestic abuse organisation.
16. The resident believed she should be reassessed as high risk to allow a managed move. The staff member correctly explained there was no evidence to support this. The landlord’s policy says risk assessment protocols should be followed. It does not say a new risk assessment should be completed by landlord staff at the resident’s request. The information given during the phone call was appropriate.
17. The resident claimed she was attacked and disbelieved during the phone call. Having reviewed recordings of the conversation, there was no evidence of this. The staff member spoke to the resident calmly and firmly. The resident accused them of victim blaming because she was a woman and said she only wanted to speak to a woman. The staff member explained this was not always possible due to the high number of calls the landlord receives and how the calls are resourced.
18. It is understandable the resident may feel more comfortable with a woman and her need for this should not be underestimated. However, while the staff member said he could not meet this request, he was not dismissive of it. The staff member spoke reasonably and appropriately throughout the call. The staff member was honest with the resident by saying he was not a domestic abuse worker and he could seek further advice. This was fair and appropriate.
19. On 11 December 2024 the resident reported her son to the police for making threats against her. The police reassessed her as high risk as a result. The landlord responded promptly and appropriately by allocating the resident a safeguarding officer and referring her for a managed move. The landlord clearly explained that, as per its managed move policy, she would be offered one alternative property. The safeguarding officer provided support to the resident and remained in weekly contact.
20. The landlord’s complaint responses were accurate and reasonable. There was no evidence of service failure or non-compliance with policy. Prior to 11 December 2024 there was no evidence of immediate risk to the resident as there had been no recent reports of domestic abuse. The landlord did not minimise the resident’s concerns and it acted promptly when there was an incident of domestic abuse.
21. The landlord has offered the resident 2 alternative properties, both of which she has declined. The landlord went above its obligation of only offering one property. It offered support with the resident seeking accommodation in other ways, such as through the local authority or by mutual exchange. This was positive and supportive.
22. Internal communication shows the landlord trying its best to address the resident’s needs. It circulated her preference of only dealing with female staff. While this was not always possible, particularly in the case of repairs operatives, the landlord did reasonably consider it. Therefore, we find that the landlord has responded to the resident fairly and appropriately.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about domestic abuse.

Recommendation

24. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident its compensation offer of £200 as per its stage one response, if it has not already done so.